| Message ID | 664ddc412905546d44d3e311a743ba5217a6243b.1702976486.git.nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [XEN] xen: add acmacros.h to exclude-list.json | expand |
On 19.12.2023 10:02, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json > +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json > @@ -209,6 +209,10 @@ > "rel_path": "include/acpi/acglobal.h", > "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now" > }, > + { > + "rel_path": "include/acpi/acmacros.h", > + "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now" > + }, Together with what's already there (in context), wouldn't it better be the entire directory then which is excluded, or at least all include/acpi/ac*.h collectively (and perhaps also include/acpi/platform/ac*.h)? Jan
On 2023-12-19 11:37, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 19.12.2023 10:02, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >> --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json >> +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json >> @@ -209,6 +209,10 @@ >> "rel_path": "include/acpi/acglobal.h", >> "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now" >> }, >> + { >> + "rel_path": "include/acpi/acmacros.h", >> + "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now" >> + }, > > Together with what's already there (in context), wouldn't it better be > the entire directory then which is excluded, or at least all > include/acpi/ac*.h collectively (and perhaps also > include/acpi/platform/ac*.h)? > > Jan +Cc Luca Fancellu Sure. I wasn't certain which files are imported from ACPI CA and which aren't. I'm also not sure whether "include/acpi/ac*.h" would be properly recognized by other tooling that uses exclude-list.json (only cppcheck I think). I Cc-ed Luca Fancellu on this.
On 2023-12-19 11:51, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > On 2023-12-19 11:37, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 19.12.2023 10:02, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>> --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json >>> +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json >>> @@ -209,6 +209,10 @@ >>> "rel_path": "include/acpi/acglobal.h", >>> "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now" >>> }, >>> + { >>> + "rel_path": "include/acpi/acmacros.h", >>> + "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now" >>> + }, >> >> Together with what's already there (in context), wouldn't it better be >> the entire directory then which is excluded, or at least all >> include/acpi/ac*.h collectively (and perhaps also >> include/acpi/platform/ac*.h)? >> >> Jan > > +Cc Luca Fancellu > > Sure. I wasn't certain which files are imported from ACPI CA and which > aren't. > I'm also not sure whether "include/acpi/ac*.h" would be properly > recognized by other tooling that uses exclude-list.json (only cppcheck > I think). I Cc-ed Luca Fancellu on this. It occurred to me that it's surely ok to use "include/acpi/ac*" and "include/acpi/platform/ac*".
Hi! > On 19 Dec 2023, at 11:05, Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com> wrote: > > On 2023-12-19 11:51, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >> On 2023-12-19 11:37, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 19.12.2023 10:02, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>>> --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json >>>> +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json >>>> @@ -209,6 +209,10 @@ >>>> "rel_path": "include/acpi/acglobal.h", >>>> "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now" >>>> }, >>>> + { >>>> + "rel_path": "include/acpi/acmacros.h", >>>> + "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now" >>>> + }, >>> Together with what's already there (in context), wouldn't it better be >>> the entire directory then which is excluded, or at least all >>> include/acpi/ac*.h collectively (and perhaps also >>> include/acpi/platform/ac*.h)? >>> Jan >> +Cc Luca Fancellu >> Sure. I wasn't certain which files are imported from ACPI CA and which aren't. >> I'm also not sure whether "include/acpi/ac*.h" would be properly recognized by other tooling that uses exclude-list.json (only cppcheck I think). I Cc-ed Luca Fancellu on this. > > It occurred to me that it's surely ok to use "include/acpi/ac*" and "include/acpi/platform/ac*". Yes I think it’s fine, it just come to my mind now that this could have the risk that if another file is added with ‘ac' prefix, even if it could be subject to MISRA compliance, it will be excluded. If that risk is negligible for the maintainer of that part, then it’s fine. > > -- > Nicola Vetrini, BSc > Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)
On Tue, 19 Dec 2023, Luca Fancellu wrote: > Hi! > > > On 19 Dec 2023, at 11:05, Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com> wrote: > > > > On 2023-12-19 11:51, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > >> On 2023-12-19 11:37, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 19.12.2023 10:02, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > >>>> --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json > >>>> +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json > >>>> @@ -209,6 +209,10 @@ > >>>> "rel_path": "include/acpi/acglobal.h", > >>>> "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now" > >>>> }, > >>>> + { > >>>> + "rel_path": "include/acpi/acmacros.h", > >>>> + "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now" > >>>> + }, > >>> Together with what's already there (in context), wouldn't it better be > >>> the entire directory then which is excluded, or at least all > >>> include/acpi/ac*.h collectively (and perhaps also > >>> include/acpi/platform/ac*.h)? > >>> Jan > >> +Cc Luca Fancellu > >> Sure. I wasn't certain which files are imported from ACPI CA and which aren't. > >> I'm also not sure whether "include/acpi/ac*.h" would be properly recognized by other tooling that uses exclude-list.json (only cppcheck I think). I Cc-ed Luca Fancellu on this. > > > > It occurred to me that it's surely ok to use "include/acpi/ac*" and "include/acpi/platform/ac*". > > Yes I think it’s fine, it just come to my mind now that this could have the risk that if > another file is added with ‘ac' prefix, even if it could be subject to MISRA compliance, > it will be excluded. > > If that risk is negligible for the maintainer of that part, then it’s fine. I think it is OK either way, I'll let Jan pick his preference.
On 20.12.2023 01:17, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Tue, 19 Dec 2023, Luca Fancellu wrote: >>> On 19 Dec 2023, at 11:05, Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com> wrote: >>> On 2023-12-19 11:51, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>>> On 2023-12-19 11:37, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 19.12.2023 10:02, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>>>>> --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json >>>>>> +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json >>>>>> @@ -209,6 +209,10 @@ >>>>>> "rel_path": "include/acpi/acglobal.h", >>>>>> "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now" >>>>>> }, >>>>>> + { >>>>>> + "rel_path": "include/acpi/acmacros.h", >>>>>> + "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now" >>>>>> + }, >>>>> Together with what's already there (in context), wouldn't it better be >>>>> the entire directory then which is excluded, or at least all >>>>> include/acpi/ac*.h collectively (and perhaps also >>>>> include/acpi/platform/ac*.h)? >>>>> Jan >>>> +Cc Luca Fancellu >>>> Sure. I wasn't certain which files are imported from ACPI CA and which aren't. >>>> I'm also not sure whether "include/acpi/ac*.h" would be properly recognized by other tooling that uses exclude-list.json (only cppcheck I think). I Cc-ed Luca Fancellu on this. >>> >>> It occurred to me that it's surely ok to use "include/acpi/ac*" and "include/acpi/platform/ac*". >> >> Yes I think it’s fine, it just come to my mind now that this could have the risk that if >> another file is added with ‘ac' prefix, even if it could be subject to MISRA compliance, >> it will be excluded. >> >> If that risk is negligible for the maintainer of that part, then it’s fine. > > I think it is OK either way, I'll let Jan pick his preference. It hasn't become clear to me what the benefit would be of omitting the trailing .h. Jan
> On 20 Dec 2023, at 08:41, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote: > > On 20.12.2023 01:17, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >> On Tue, 19 Dec 2023, Luca Fancellu wrote: >>>> On 19 Dec 2023, at 11:05, Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com> wrote: >>>> On 2023-12-19 11:51, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>>>> On 2023-12-19 11:37, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 19.12.2023 10:02, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>>>>>> --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json >>>>>>> +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json >>>>>>> @@ -209,6 +209,10 @@ >>>>>>> "rel_path": "include/acpi/acglobal.h", >>>>>>> "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now" >>>>>>> }, >>>>>>> + { >>>>>>> + "rel_path": "include/acpi/acmacros.h", >>>>>>> + "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now" >>>>>>> + }, >>>>>> Together with what's already there (in context), wouldn't it better be >>>>>> the entire directory then which is excluded, or at least all >>>>>> include/acpi/ac*.h collectively (and perhaps also >>>>>> include/acpi/platform/ac*.h)? >>>>>> Jan >>>>> +Cc Luca Fancellu >>>>> Sure. I wasn't certain which files are imported from ACPI CA and which aren't. >>>>> I'm also not sure whether "include/acpi/ac*.h" would be properly recognized by other tooling that uses exclude-list.json (only cppcheck I think). I Cc-ed Luca Fancellu on this. >>>> >>>> It occurred to me that it's surely ok to use "include/acpi/ac*" and "include/acpi/platform/ac*". >>> >>> Yes I think it’s fine, it just come to my mind now that this could have the risk that if >>> another file is added with ‘ac' prefix, even if it could be subject to MISRA compliance, >>> it will be excluded. >>> >>> If that risk is negligible for the maintainer of that part, then it’s fine. >> >> I think it is OK either way, I'll let Jan pick his preference. > > It hasn't become clear to me what the benefit would be of omitting the > trailing .h. Yes, with the extension is better, the same as we already do here: [...] { "rel_path": "common/un*.c”, "comment": "unlz4.c implementation by Yann Collet, the others un* are from Linux, ignore for now" }, [...]
On 2023-12-20 09:50, Luca Fancellu wrote: >> On 20 Dec 2023, at 08:41, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote: >> >> On 20.12.2023 01:17, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>> On Tue, 19 Dec 2023, Luca Fancellu wrote: >>>>> On 19 Dec 2023, at 11:05, Nicola Vetrini >>>>> <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2023-12-19 11:51, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>>>>> On 2023-12-19 11:37, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>> On 19.12.2023 10:02, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>>>>>>> --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json >>>>>>>> +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json >>>>>>>> @@ -209,6 +209,10 @@ >>>>>>>> "rel_path": "include/acpi/acglobal.h", >>>>>>>> "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now" >>>>>>>> }, >>>>>>>> + { >>>>>>>> + "rel_path": "include/acpi/acmacros.h", >>>>>>>> + "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now" >>>>>>>> + }, >>>>>>> Together with what's already there (in context), wouldn't it >>>>>>> better be >>>>>>> the entire directory then which is excluded, or at least all >>>>>>> include/acpi/ac*.h collectively (and perhaps also >>>>>>> include/acpi/platform/ac*.h)? >>>>>>> Jan >>>>>> +Cc Luca Fancellu >>>>>> Sure. I wasn't certain which files are imported from ACPI CA and >>>>>> which aren't. >>>>>> I'm also not sure whether "include/acpi/ac*.h" would be properly >>>>>> recognized by other tooling that uses exclude-list.json (only >>>>>> cppcheck I think). I Cc-ed Luca Fancellu on this. >>>>> >>>>> It occurred to me that it's surely ok to use "include/acpi/ac*" and >>>>> "include/acpi/platform/ac*". >>>> >>>> Yes I think it’s fine, it just come to my mind now that this could >>>> have the risk that if >>>> another file is added with ‘ac' prefix, even if it could be subject >>>> to MISRA compliance, >>>> it will be excluded. >>>> >>>> If that risk is negligible for the maintainer of that part, then >>>> it’s fine. >>> >>> I think it is OK either way, I'll let Jan pick his preference. >> >> It hasn't become clear to me what the benefit would be of omitting the >> trailing .h. > > Yes, with the extension is better, the same as we already do here: > > [...] > { > "rel_path": "common/un*.c”, > "comment": "unlz4.c implementation by Yann Collet, the others un* > are from Linux, ignore for now" > }, > [...] Ok, I'll send a v2
diff --git a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json index 48f671c548b6..36cca71fae2d 100644 --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json @@ -209,6 +209,10 @@ "rel_path": "include/acpi/acglobal.h", "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now" }, + { + "rel_path": "include/acpi/acmacros.h", + "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now" + }, { "rel_path": "include/xen/acpi.h", "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
The file was inherited from Linux and ACPI CA, therefore it's not subject to MISRA compliance at the moment. No functional change. Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com> --- docs/misra/exclude-list.json | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)